Anna Raccoon Archives

Post navigation

A ‘Right’ Royal Tit – and a Previously ‘Left’ One.

The Anna Raccoon Archives

by Anna Raccoon on September 16, 2012

What a prize pair of tits we have on display this morning. The Duchess of Cambridge for engaging in the ‘oh so fashionable’ mindset of “I have every right to behave as I want, where I want, when I want, how I want, and there should be laws to stop me suffering any consequences” and Richard Desmond, the gift that never stops giving, previous owner of such edifying titles as Asian Babes, Big Ones, Eros, Forum, Horny Housewives, Only 18 and Mothers-in-Law, professing himself so shocked at the sight of a pair of tits in a newspaper that he part owns that he is taking steps to throw 100 journalists out of work.

Truly this pair deserve each other.

The Feminists are out in force mouthing such choice phrases as ‘rape culture’, ‘bodily exploitation of un-consenting women’, ‘seedy, dreggy voyeurism’ and ‘policing femininity’; and the media are right behind them with a selection of reminders that it was Richard Desmond and the Daily Express which sounded the death knell, still ringing in our ears, of the PCC by withdrawing his four national papers from its self-regulating ambit.

Gawd love ‘em both. Introspection be neither of their middle names.

Should the Duchess of Cambridge be entitled to the privacy she claims? Well, there is a reason the rest of us put on clothes to do the gardening in 40 degrees of heat; it is not fear of a sudden burst of cold air. It is that we chose not to display our bodies to whoever might peek over the garden fence. (For some of us that is out of consideration for their sensitivities!) Is there any difference between the farmer next door peeking over the fence, or the paparazzi? None that I can see logically. You could argue that the Duchess has no problem with the royal bodyguards seeing her tits, nor the various slaves and servants that attend her, but conveying that image to the hoi poloi is what offends.

With Desmond it seems the view is from the other end of the spectrum. He has no problem, and a financial stake, with the hoi poloi displaying their Asian breasts, but is afflicted by a fit of the Murdoch’s at the idea of anyone making money out of shots of the Royal mammary glands.

I find I cannot sympathise with either of them.

There is no conceivable public interest in inspecting the feeding mechanism for the next batch of Royals, any more than there was in inspecting Prince Harry’s collection of the crown jewels. Nor, incidentally, the breasts of the young lady he was fondling – she didn’t take the pictures, she was in them! I didn’t hear Desmond complaining about the invasion of her privacy. Does that mean that the Duchess is entitled to behave as she wishes and use the law to punish those who portray her as an ordinary person? Despite being a supporter of the monarchy, I would say no. It is a position of peculiar privilege, and with that privilege comes responsibility. You get the use of Viscount Linley’s magnificent Provence estate before jetting off to Malaysia to be fetted on all sides, you don’t get the right to display your breasts in view of a public road and then howl ‘invasion of privacy’. In fact you only get the right to behave as the rest of us do – either find yourself somewhere exceptionally private in which to strip off, or accept that the hoi poloi might get a glimpse of yer tits.

There is an argument that those who appear in, for instance, Horney Housewives, have chosen to take their clothes off, chosen to so display themselves. For my money, so has the Duchess. The presence of a camera and subsequent publication, doesn’t morally detract from the decision to so display yourself. I’ll grant you the end result is more embarrassing.

As for Desmond; previously a magnanimous Labour supporter, who managed to avoid the retribution visited on Murdoch’s head, by resorting to a little private arm twisting in telling Tony Blair that Labour would lose the support of his newspaper empire if Gordon Brown succeeded him, rather than blazing it from the front pages, now dines with David Cameron and has turned the Express into a viciously right wing organ. Previously such a supporter of free speech and the free press (except in the libel courts) that he chose to remove himself from the one, albeit toothless, organisation that did occasionally slap press wrists, now thinks that it is reasonable to, not slap the wrist of an editor he considers has gone too far, but to napalm the entire edifice.

Utter hypocrites, the pair of them.

Celebrity rules these days. The press are allowed to publicise grief, humiliation, embarrassment, so long as they restrict themselves to those of no account. Immigrants, benefit cheats, erring husbands. Do the same to an MP, a Royal, a ‘C’ list celebrity, and suddenly there is no ‘public interest’.

What public interest is there in knowing that some poor blighters met their maker in a Hillsborough slurry pit?

{71 comments }

JimmySeptember 18, 2012 at 12:28

Anna, children at school are part of a group with fairly similar expectations. In the private schools, the tendency is for a child’s ability to be over estimated. In the state schools there is huge variation bit it’s all down to the area/prosperity. So, there are fantastic state schools and for those fortunate enough to fall within the catchment it’s a free ride. I taught in a deprived area and found that parents were reluctant to acknowledge a bright child.

Teachers tend to be altruistic, obviously not all. Many give of their time unstintingly but don’t get a lot of thanks. In recent times we have a problem. The calibre of the teacher is not what it was, and that really is a massive problem. I don’t know how long it is going to take before folks realise that if teachers are those who can’t get in to anything else, then our children will not learn. At least not from them.

Some of the best qualified teachers go in to the private sector, not just because they are better paid but because they are supported by a network of staff and parents. It’s just easier, and for some staves off a nervous breakdown. It’s a vicious circle, where disenchanted kids scare off the staff, and those who are well qualified take an easier route.

Children have choice but they are influenced by their peers. By their parents. By whether they have a book at home. (Many do not) I try not to judge but it is a crying shame how many bright children leave school with minimal qualifications when their raw intelligence should have ensured so much more.

JimmySeptember 18, 2012 at 11:51

Just one parting shot, because I can’t resist it. Being very clever is very similar to being very good looking/beautiful. It’s a bit freakish and unearned. It just is.

You are a clever woman. Probably super clever, but it makes no sense to focus on those who can go it alone and beat the odds. Teachers need to maximise the potential of even the most ordinary student. This is what the middle classes pay for. So that their average offspring can go study humanities at a university that anybody has ever heard of. In the comprehensive state school system it is only the very brightest who make it to this stage.

You got a double first because you are super intelligent and you had a bit of grounding going on there. I got a first class degree in Mathematics from a ‘Russell Group’ university. When I was at school I was known as ‘the mathematician’, not because I was better than some others but because I was so hopeless at the English/History stuff and Maths was all I could do. I think I’ve improved and I work at it all the time.

I also believe in personal responsibility. My responsibility is to ensure that children know what responsibility is. Some children never get asked to prove themselves. They are never given the tools and if we’re talking statistically they have very little chance. We need to teach all those who fall in the middle, to reach their full potential, as enthusiastically as we teach the brightest and best. With the same resolve because our future will not be defined by the select few.

So why don’t the teachers ‘maximise potential’ at the state schools? Why don’t they give away their ability to do so for free – why only when they are being paid extra at middle class schools.

To hear you speak you would imagine that chidlren have no choice in how they perform – it is solely down to the teacher they are given, which I happen to believe is total rot. You can be given the best teacher in the world and be unwilling to learn.

m.barnesSeptember 18, 2012 at 10:28

Well I disagree with the post. Crikey – I’m on a toofer!Harry and the naked lady he was clutching could see the photographers in front of them clutching their cameras so there was little public outrage about the pictures and the reaction from the Palace was OTT and they quickly retreated. The pubic reaction was overwhelmingly underwhemed – even Piers Morgan managed to be funny about it with his ‘am outraged. Why wasn’t I invited’ tweet – shock horror young man goes to Vegas and gets drunk and nekked with wimmin. A few muppets tried to talk up the security implications but that’s nonsense am afraid.Your point about the Slurry Pit story is not bad but nobody took pictures of the bodies did they? And slurry pits are regulated and recent legislation is not in place in NI and may not be put in place.If the DofC had been in her back garden you’d have a point and I wouldn’t be arguing. But she was in a private villa a considerable distance from the public road. That size of lens needed to take those pictures would have to be supported to stop shake.So either this public road is pretty darned quiet allowing the photographer to set up and stay set up or the photographer was hidden off the road. The photographer went looking for them , he/she didn’t just happen across them and take a couple of quick pics with a small digital camera they happened to have in their pocket. Slam dunk invasion of privacy. The earning potential or celebrity of the person involved doesn’t matter.So onto personal responsibility. I think she took reasonable steps to ensure her privacy. The trip was not publicised. The villa was remote, she felt she was in a private, un-overlooked place (unless you have a bloody great big lens and associated tripods and are suitably conealed). She hasn’t tried to use the press in the way that Diana did so no mixed messages.Desmond is a smart cookie who has made an eminently sensible decision to cut loose from the Irish paper before it impacts his papers here a la NoTW. He was probably not that impressed with the financials anyway so this was a good opportunity to pull out. Is he a bit of a scumbag? Well I ain’t a fan of his newspapers.I actually think the newspapers have been incredibly good about this. It is an invasion of privacy and most people think so. The French editor doesn’t even have the courage to stand by her actions. Why doesn’t she just say ‘yup, invasion of privacy, we’ll get fined and we don’t care cos the sales will cover it’. We get this bollocks about pretty girls on beaches and a couple in love – they weren’t getting their kit off on the beach and they clearly are not an ordinary couple in love or you wouldn’t be splashing it on the front page and trailing it with ‘OH MY GOD’.And some of the comments about it are just icky – some will look at the pics out of curiosity, some because they’re tits and tits are automatically interesting and a nasty underbelly will lok at them because in their sick wee minds it brings her down ‘she thinks she’s all that but I’ve seen her tits’.I havn’t seen them BTW: (a) I’m not that interested in the DofC, she seems nice enough, doing a good job in a tricky position and all that (b) If I disapprove in principle then I cannae be looking at them can I? Thats hypocrisy. and finally (c) I have my own pair, why would I pay to look at someone elses? Helloooo!

JimmySeptember 18, 2012 at 09:32

Okay, I won’t comment here again. My combative nature sometimes gets the better of me. Actually, I didn’t say too much in your most recent controversial post because more eloquent people were articulating my feelings.

Honestly, I wasn’t just trying to rile you up. I was, I admit, astonished by the lack of outrage from the usual suspects…in that particular post, regarding the football tragedy. In my experience, very clever individuals tend to have empathy and concern for the sensibilities of others and there is no doubt that you have some fine writers on board . I certainly do not expect them to agree with me under normal conditions. You’re obviously a like-minded bunch and that’s fine. As an awkward writer myself, I find it irritating that people can win a debate-style exchange because they write well, despite their ideas being questionable. That is my opinion. Less scholarly people open themselves up to ridicule because perfectly valid arguments are expressed in less lucid fashion.

My obsession with where you were educated comes from my firm belief that the school you attend hugely affects your life chances. From the looks of things you had a pretty miserable time and very little stability. I am truly sorry that you have suffered. If you started university at aged fifty three you deserve a medal.

I worked my way up the teaching profession, in the state school and private school systems and reached the dizzying heights of Deputy Head of a very privileged private school (My major role was to instill the fear of God into the miscreants and, as you may imagine, I could do that) and I was always aware that more able students in the state system had to be so much better than their richer counterparts. Anyway, in the spirit of sharing too much information I will say that I left the teaching profession for nigh on ten years, working as a software developer. I made a bit of money and returned to teaching because that is what I wanted.

I am not claiming to be a saintly person! Far from it. But I hope I will always care and never give up believing that the future is for all our children. Especially those who are born into poverty.

Thank you for your clarifications. I really didn’t need to know the personal stuff. I will continue to read.

You are welcome to comment here at any time on stories that are posted.

I see you were under the impression that I had some sort of privileged background. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, I don’t consider myself to ‘have suffered’.

I do have an exceptionally strong belief in personal responsibility, and an unwillingness to blame the environment provided by parents for a lack of life chances. The ‘ladder I climbed up’ as someone once put it, is there to this day, for everyone – more so than in my day as it happens, the Internet has created a level playing field in that respect – and it is available to everyone from a variety of sources even if you do not have your own computer at home.

“I really didn’t need to know the personal stuff.” It seems that you did, otherwise you would have gone on thinking that I had some advantage that was not available to others, and taking pot shots at me on the basis of that belief.

Poverty is not just a financial concept. It can come in many forms. As an educator yourself, you will be aware of the special grant I received to go to university, all of 100 quid a week, and yes I did support myself on that – and the, at the time sick, Mr G. I had that grant because I had received less than 7 years full time education – and incidentally had never sat a single exam in my life, having contrived to be in hospital every time exams came around..11+ etc.

I went to university having never set eyes on an essay, never mind been taught how to write one. I had to get a book called ‘how to write an essay’ out of the excellent library and read it and absorb it from cover to cover. Come to that, I had to ‘talk my way’ into university in the first place, not having time in life to go through an access course, nor having a single piece of paper to my name. It can be done. I finally found a university that would take that chance on me – 120 miles from my home that I could either drive to every day (expensive) or find someone who would let me sleep on their sofa. I took the latter option most days. Amazing what other students will do in return for someone doing their housework, I’m not proud.

You have a bee in your bonnet about what you see as privilege – I have a bee in my bonnet that life chances are a matter of personal responsibility. I am neither the first, nor will I be the last, person to come out of an allegedly underprivileged background by dint of pulling up my own bootstraps.

The strange thing is, I came out of university with a double first – something I put down to having not relied on ‘what I was taught’, but having taught myself what I needed in order to achieve a certain outcome. That ‘if other people can do it, so can I’ attitude is what makes the difference, not the social position of your parents.

Roger SindenSeptember 18, 2012 at 07:33

There was a time when the Royal Family went to fashionable UK resorts like Bognor Regis for their holidays. Had the couple opted for this rather than crossing the Channel, this event is unlikely to have happened as our summer is less conducive.A staycation would have boosted the economy with purchases of buckets, spades,rock and trays of chips

JimmySeptember 17, 2012 at 12:36

No, I am not having another bad day and I find it rather difficult to believe that your picking up on the slurry pit story with it’s key word was completely innocent. There are hundreds of news stories every day.

You know, if you write this stuff, shove it into the public domain in order to get a response, you take what you get. I am sorry if you take it as a personal attack. It’s your views that are difficult to take sometimes and your loyal followers, who seem to lose sight of independent thought in their loyalty to you.

Excuse me for not hanging on your every word. For not agreeing with your assessment of the Liverpool poor. For being very suspicious of your account of where you grew up when it is a matter of record that you did not attend school there. And you make a point of telling extraordinary tales of childhood exploits, grand houses thrown open to your family, the great and good who you hob nob with. I have never heard of Scotland Rd before, but I’m guessing it’s not too salubrious. Also that your association with it was fleeting, but a good platform from which to launch an attack.

This is a response to what you write. In that regard it is personal. I don’t know you, except for what you reveal in this blog. That’s how I judge.

I picked up on the slurry pit story because it was breaking news at the time I was writing. Yes, you get what you take in terms of comments – but you even attack other commentators if you perceive them to be less critical of me than you are. You seem to think that everyone should be permanently on the attack against me. Why? If they are not critical of me you describe them as ‘hanging on my every word’ – that is far from the truth. What is interesting is that you think of them as some sort of herd of sheep if they don’t agree with your every word.

You are suspicious of where I grew up because I didn’t go to school there? People do get to go home in the school holidays occasionally.

I started school in Guernsey, aged three.I went to boarding school in Littlehampton.I went to boarding school in Brighton.I went to day school in New Zealand.I went to day school in Reading.I was home schooled for a while.I was in hospital for several years on and off.I went to boarding school in Hertfordshire.I went to a children’s home aged 13.I never returned to school.I went to university aged 53.

What great and the good that I hobnob with? Oh, I forgot, Kenneth Clarke was my next door neighbour once. If you count him as great and good…..

What grand houses thrown open to my family?

Scotland Road is where my family came from and continued to live there until long after I was an adult. They owned a sweet shop there from the turn of the last century. My Grandmother was a seamstress, my Grandfather a cabinet maker. I married a man from Scotland Road.

There now, do you feel you know enough about me now, that you can concentrate on debating the news issues rather than berating other commentators and being obsessed with where I went to school?

JimmySeptember 17, 2012 at 08:17

Anna, the Hillsborough slurry pit was news. I suppose you mention it to cause confusion. Nothing to do with a certain football match. It does say quite a lot about you though.

Jimmy, of course it had nothing to do with a certain football match. Subsequently it emerged that one of the victims was a celebrated Rugby star, that qualifies as news, but at the time of the ‘breaking news’ item that wasn’t known.Deaths in slurry pits are a regrettable frequent event, particularly in Ireland as it happens. They are frequently multiple deaths as one person tries to rescue another.Now why do you think those deaths, a sad private tragedy, was headlining on the news? Not because it was ‘news’ that’s for sure.I hope that the fact that I objected to that private grief being labelled ‘news’ does say ‘rather a lot’ about me as it happens.Your presence here seems to be turning into a daily excuse to personally attack me, rather than debate the news – are you having another bad day?

JimmySeptember 17, 2012 at 07:36

Gildas, sometimes it’s easy to put up a mild objection. Just reinforces the love. I’m pleased to note that you haven’t completely suspended your critical faculties. Maybe you will contain yourself until next time to proclaim yet another ‘Tour de Force.’ I’m sorry but all the mutual back slapping gets on my sodding nerves.

You guys are a clever lot. No doubt about it. You can run rings around me and if there’s any doubt about it Julia M can be brought in to correct the spelling errors.

You know that I like some of what you write, Anna. But some of it is bollocks. I can’t stand the slavish devotion of your supporters but some of them, I let off. Gildas, I hold accountable. Are you a Catholic? Well, I’m not, but many a time I’ve held off the hate. You should do the same.

john malpasSeptember 17, 2012 at 06:38

Yet you shouldn’t / mustn’t photograph young children at play.

amfortasSeptember 17, 2012 at 04:10

There are 7,000,000,000 people in the world and a good 3 billion have tits. Two each, mostly. Thats 6 billion tits. Few are worth gawping at, especially from half a mile away. There are similar numbers of hands (a few fewer in Arab countries) and feet, legs and arms. All body bits. But the sacred tits just have to be displayed when the owner feels like it and howled about in rage when they don’t feel like it. Bloody daft if you ask me.

richardSeptember 17, 2012 at 02:23

Would they have made such a fuss if she was photographed in the exact same cicumstances except that she wasn’t topless, they never seem to mind being papped on their holidays by the sea, surely she is not so unaware that she is a target for photographers around the world, all this bluster is just to deflect people away from the fact that young royals are commiting yet another faux pas.

Carol42September 17, 2012 at 00:27

I do think she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a private location some 700 metres from a road from what I read. However if she was smoking a cigarette it has made my day and I will like her forever!

KrautSeptember 17, 2012 at 00:22

Not that I’m a fan of the royals, but you have to make a distinction between “in view of a public road” and “barely visible from a public road by a papparazi with a high-powered telephoto lense”. She wasn’t standing next to the road, she was on a private estate, and only visible to an extremely dedicated peeping tom.

ZaphodSeptember 16, 2012 at 22:09

The Royals are making a mistake in making a fuss.

I’m more intrigued by the suggestion that she was also smoking a cigarette.I’m much more intrigued by the fact that nobody seems interested. Neither the antismoker industry, nor the defiant smoker blogs.Both groups have their reasons. But what are they?

She has denied smoking a cigarette – so I remain intrigued by what she might have been smoking!

MudpluggerSeptember 16, 2012 at 21:23

What has appeared so far are only the ‘topless’ shots – it is suggested that the full collection goes on to feature the lady lacking the other portion of her bikini too. Perhaps the Royals’ rush to the courts, apparently futile because the topless snaps are already viral, is really aimed at preventing the rest of the collection being released.

The slimline Royal Baby-Feeders are one thing, but the Royal Beaver….. ?

Ed PSeptember 16, 2012 at 20:18

I hope she strikes a blow for equality & freedom if/when she has a baby, by breast-feeding it in public. There’s just too much hypocrisy about breasts – surely only adolescent schoolboys (& emotionally stunted men) have these absurd desires to see female chests. Don’t they have partners? And there are already plenty of top shelf magazines for these sad obsessives, without needing silly out-of-focus sneaked gropographs of the latest royal brood mare.

Thank you Lerxst, I stand corrected (rather like those Lesbian bottoms…)

cascadianSeptember 16, 2012 at 19:36

Never in the field of human hypocrisy, have so many, been so outraged by so little.

Seventy years ago, young aviators from around the globe were fighting an air war against daunting odds to enable the continuing existence of a free UK, and the right (amongst others) of some silly bint to sunbathe topless. The duke and duchess of teeth need to grow up, all the free travel to exotic locales, all the expensive clothes and meals come at a cost, the cost of popularity that they court and an abnormal desire by a large part of the population to see even more.

I would be quite happy if they both disappeared from the newspapers, got themselves worthwhile jobs and contributed to the national GDP instead of being a drain on it.

Old SlaughterSeptember 16, 2012 at 18:33

Out interest, if she was in the bath and the scummy pap was hiding behind the towel rack would she still be displaying herself?

Forza600 (Jay Ramella)September 16, 2012 at 19:01

That’s just silly! Indicates lack of belief in royal protection officers, though!

Jay RamellaSeptember 16, 2012 at 15:06

I apologise! You did include ‘Forum’.

the doctorSeptember 16, 2012 at 15:06

I fail to see what all the fuss is about , they are only a pair of not very impressive mammary glands on a thin young woman .

bobSeptember 16, 2012 at 14:26

As a previous commentator has said, your photo is of a pair of ‘great tits’ rather than ‘tits’. You can tell by the black stripe down the front of the birds chest. The smaller blue tit doesn’t have this stripe. So Kate has ‘great tits’. Cool. All I’ve seen are blurred images so far Is it right to say ‘the hoi polloi ‘ ?

‘hoi polloi’ is Greek for ‘the many’. So ‘ the hoi polloi’ is’ the the many’.

Sometimes ‘hoi polloi’ is confused with ‘hoity toity’ which is the posh ones.

A good heading for your article would be…… ”Hoity Toity upset by Hoi Polloi seeing her great tits in a private setting that wasn’t really private if you were a hoi polloi papparazzi sitting with a telephoto lens from a mile away”

Maybe I should get out a bit more. Once my hangover clears I’m outta here.

Forza600 (Jay Ramella)September 16, 2012 at 14:35

I am sensing an education that embraced the classics. Therefore you will be perceived as hoity toity by much of the hoi polloi. Try a bloody mary for the hangover.

Well I did put ‘pair of great tits’ in the image search engine. Boy, that was an eye opener first thing in the morning.

Jay RamellaSeptember 16, 2012 at 14:39

‘Reader’s Wives’ still lives?

pompey cowboySeptember 16, 2012 at 17:49

Yup try volume VIIX – the missus is in there dispalying her wares

pompey cowboySeptember 16, 2012 at 14:09

Right Royal Family then — Flash Harry and A cup list Kate

Forza600 (Jay Ramella)September 16, 2012 at 14:14

Like that!

LewSeptember 16, 2012 at 13:41

Unfortunate though the pics are, thats the way of the modern world, inhabited by scum who would sell or use their own children if the price was right let alone some spy pics, and by a strange public who will pay good money to read some vile trash clossy mag, and not even any use to wipe ones bum with when read.

I’m only glad it wasn’t a telescopic sight instead of some arseholes long range lens, serious questions need answering from the protection team, who would be replaced yesterday if it were my decision.

“I’m only glad it wasn’t a telescopic sight instead of some arseholes long range lens, serious questions need answering from the protection team, who would be replaced yesterday if it were my decision.”

At last I find myself in some disgreement with our noble Landlady! Suerly the poor woman should be allowed some privacy. true, she married the heir to the throne, and true that has some (many) perks, but I feel that they are trying their best to have some privacy, that should be respected. Of course, it is a very good excuse Invade And Conquer France (does one really need an excuse anyway?). But then again our landlady has already done her bit in that regard!

BackwoodsmanSeptember 16, 2012 at 13:10

But surely, at some stage Brenda had a word and pointed out that she was now fair game and not to put herself in compromising positions ? IMHO, its fairly self inflicted.BTW, glad to see most still here and present and correct , after the managements’ attempt to bring the revenge of the Scousers down on us.

Anna, I would applaud you with four hands if I had them! Since the story broke I have been tweeting the meat – if you’ll excuse the expression – of what you have said more elaborately. You omitted ‘Search’ and ‘Forum’ from Richard Desmond’s exalted title range. Both were pornography of quite a multifarious variety, delivered in plain brown envellopes and catering for many specialist tastes, but mostly renowned for ‘Readers’ Wives.’ As the subtitle implies, this was a monthly selection of women who had elected supposedly to get their tits and other parts out to be photographed for the delectation of others. Many were taken outside with roads and other public accesses in the background and a large number of the women appeared to be unaware there was a camera lens on them at the time. Nobody shrieked invasion of privacy. The titles folded in or about the early 1980s, probably driven out by access to internet porn or, perhaps, a dearth of sturdy brown envelopes. My point, in agreement with yours, is that if you don’t want to be caught at a disadvantage don’t put yourself at one! As for prince William’s role in the affair I see four alternatives, none of them mutually exclusive and all allowing for the presence of chateau staff, protection officers and overflying aircraft. Either he is incredibly thick, insensitive or naive or he simply didn’t care who saw his wife’s unremarkable breasts – until the shit hit the fan, of course!

Ken FergusonSeptember 16, 2012 at 11:36

In principle, I am in favour of everyone being able to photograph (and publish) anything and everything.

However permission should be required to photograph someone where they are on private property and there is a notice, or other indication, that there is no implied right of access to the property.

However a statutory privacy law is not required to enforce this, and any remedy should be a civil matter.

FrankieSeptember 16, 2012 at 11:31

I think that now the Duchess of Cambridge has, unfortunately for her, taken on the mantle of ‘most photographed woman in the world’ from the late lamented Diana, Princess of Wales she might EXPECT to be photographed at any and all concievable opportunity and, therefore should have EXPECTED some vile paparazzo to be lurking in the bushes, long lens clutched in his trembling fingers… So, either go with it, and if ‘they’ get lucky then, so be it, she has nothing extra in that department – over 50% of the world’s population have similar appendages, or if you are worried then don’t “get them out” – even in the supposed ‘privacy’ of a private chateau. If she didn’t want the attention, no one forced her to jump into that extremely expensive wedding dress and go to the extremely expensive wedding, to marry the extremely wealthy and well connected heir to the throne.

I cannot imagine that there are any ‘tit’ pictures of the Queen knocking about and I doubt very much if she ever went topless on holiday. Her sister, Margaret, well, that is a different story… Perhaps there is a different mindset within the population that treats such people with less reverence than formerly, but if Catherine or Kate or whomsoever didn’t want these pictures taken she should have kept her “kit” on and put up with the “white bits” on her otherwise perfectly tanned body.

I wondered whether the Duchess should now go the whole hog and pose nude for a high class magazine. Think of how much money she could make, which she could then donate to good causes. She would, at one stroke, satisfy the desires of all of those who are desperate to see her in the “altogether”, end any future mileage in anyone trying to get more pictures of her on holiday, raise a lot of money for her particular charity, and, finally, bring the royal family into the 20th century!

EngineerSeptember 16, 2012 at 11:37

Not too sure that the idea set out in your last paragraph would be a wise move from the Royal point of view, but if it did happen, it would be fun watching the more strident feministas of both extremes of the argument tearing into each other over it.

I’m not keen on the ‘she was asking for it’ riposte, Anna, which is what comes across in your blog. It’s too near to ‘walking alone in the dark it’s your fault you were mugged’ etc.

She was in a private remote location, and regardless of who she is, it’s wrong for a sleazy snooper to spy on her and publish the results to a global audience.

Re Desmond I don’t see the hypocrisy. Sure he publishes a load of sordid tat. However the models for his porno-publications have done so voluntarily and been paid for doing so – they weren’t spied upon in moments of privacy without consent.

Again. It’s not ‘your fault’ you were mugged – but you do have a responsibility to mitigate the possibility of getting mugged, by not walking in places where it is likely to occur. Have we completely abandoned personal responsibility as a notion then?

splotchySeptember 16, 2012 at 11:50

I disagree. We should be able to walk in public places wherever/whenever we want – if someone mugs us it is 100% the mugger’s fault. Remember some people have no choice than to walk through seedy areas to eg get to work, visit a relative etc. If those who do have a choice surrender these areas to the muggers, then it is worse for those who have no choice.

So I hope the duchess wins her legal action – it will not just protect her in future, but those less powerful who might also be vulnerable to pervy snoopers spying on them and pimping out the results.

“I disagree. We should be able to walk in public places wherever/whenever we want – if someone mugs us it is 100% the mugger’s fault. “

I totally agree. But it’d be nice if the police remembered this fact and didn’t waste everyone’s time with useless publicity stunts like taking things from unlocked cars and leaving a card saying ‘I could have been a burglar’. Also clogging up Twitter with messages that sound like your mum. I’m waiting for them to tell me to wrap up warm and have a pee before I leave so I won’t need to stop on the way…

Yes, we should be able to. If you are mugged it is 100% the muggers fault.But it is not a black and white issue.We also have a responsibility to ourselves.Do you leave your paypacket outside your front door?You should be able to. If it is stolen it is 100% the thief’s fault.However, I bet you don’t. The same responsibility applies to privacy and personal safety as applies to your wallet.

KrautSeptember 17, 2012 at 00:32

Surely sitting in the (one assumes rather spacious) PRIVATE grounds of your husband’s cousin (or whatever the technical term for the level of relatedness is… I don’t really track the royal family bush^H^H^H^H err.. tree) is sufficient precaution. Just like it’s sufficient precaution for me to keep my wallet in my pocket – I don’t need to keep it in a safe and hire a security van every time I walk into town.

LerxstSeptember 16, 2012 at 12:51

Splotchy, I agree 100% that we should be able to walk in public places wherever/whenever we want, and if someone mugs us the law should come down like a ton of bricks on the mugger. Where we were in no way takes away from their guilt. At the same time, it is perfectly reasonable to comment that we should take sensible precautions eg I make sure I don’t need to walk through the underpass that’s a mugging hotspot. If we don’t and something happens to us, it shouldn’t affect the legal process, but it’s reasonable for others to look and go “you stupid idiot”.

In this particular case, I’d say the degree to which one can call Kate a stupid idiot for getting photographed depends on how secluded and remote the actual location was. I’ve seen mention of a public road but I’ve no idea how close it was.

NielsRSeptember 17, 2012 at 14:33

This always drives me nuts. Splotchy, your argument assumes that there is only one lot of responsibility, and any allocation of blame to the victim must be letting the criminal off, by the same amount. I don’t think this is true, but rather that there are two separate issues to consider.

On the one hand is the criminal act of the mugging. This is the mugger’s fault, 100%.

The second issue is whether the victim took reasonable precautions to protect themselves. This is simply on the same spectrum as playing with fire, kicking large dogs, and wearing a coat so you don’t catch a cold. You can argue about ‘reasonable’, but if you don’t take the basic steps you’re an idiot regardless of whether anything actually happens or not.

So you can be asking for it, and still have the full responsibility for the crime be the mugger’s.

As for what’s-her-name, it looks like she took reasonable precautions for privacy, and the pap breached it. However, she’s got more than enough support to sort it out through the courts, and even to campaign for new laws if that proves fruitless, so frankly I don’t much care.

It seems that the rather downmarket Ms Middleton is taking up Diana’s mantle of the ‘professional victim’. I see this morning that her intellectually-challenged husband intends to press charges against the photographer.

Is it that the Royal Family have just started being total plonkers, or is it that they always have been and that the veil has only now been taken from my eyes?

I think I’m more interested in why a Photographer, especially a Female Photographer, would want to hide behind bushes, and why a Magazine would want to publish the subsequent photographs. But then I’m not a man. Or is that a sexist remark?In my hay days, I looked every bit as good topless, as I expect she does, but I wouldn’t have cared for someone photographing me in the privacy of my garden without my permission. Not because I would care about anyone seeing the photographs, but because I think it’s a bloody cheek.PS. I’m not Royal, by the way.

John Wood (@old_chap)September 16, 2012 at 10:41

Consider naturists. They dress down in their private locations and have done their best to not upset the horses. If someone were to deliberately set out to photograph them, where would the blame lie? Seems Kate was new to the area and it seems from published images to be quite rural. She felt confident in doing what hundreds of women do on public beaches. Germans are pretty straight laced but get their tops off before even bagging a beach lounger. To show herself on Buck House with no top – deserves all she would get. Hide away in the forest – no blame attaches to her

I’m not saying that ‘blame’ attaches to her. I am saying that we all have a personal responsibility for our behaviour and shouldn’t rely on the law to blame someone else for bad consequences. It is a modern phenomena that there must be ‘blame’ somewhere….. just accept that there are consequences in life.As for being ‘quite rural’ and in a forest – there is a public road running alongside.

EngineerSeptember 16, 2012 at 11:31

Well, not quite. From a photograph published in the Telegragh yesterday, the road in question is about half a mile from the villa. Anybody at said villa would have a reasonable expectation that they were in private, and the ‘long lens’ used to photograph Kate must have been a VERY long lens. There is no way she could have seen the photograher and taken steps to preserve her modesty.

In this instance, I think William and Kate do have a good case. As for Desmond, he is going whichever way the wind blows, presumably with more than half an eye on the future profitability of his businesses. More cynical than evil, I think, but hardly a paragon of virtue nonetheless.

Tony (Somerset)September 16, 2012 at 13:28

I agree. Basically, Kate was spied on by a peeping Tom, and that’s not nice whichever way you look at it and whoever is involved. And people who look at the photos become peeping Toms by association.